We must remember that a large portion of the Old Testament consists in
the history of that chosen line which connected the Lord Jesus Christ
with Abraham, and that the country which we generally call “Palestine”
was given to that family as their home. It was in that country that
Abraham sojourned, and that his family lived for the 1,400 years between
the Exodus and the Advent. It is obvious therefore that the history of
that family during all those centuries must abound in allusions to the
different places in that country, and as the history enters very much
into social life, we must naturally expect very frequent allusions to the
places in which the people lived.
It is important for us also to remember that the history was not one book
written by one author at one time, but that much of it was evidently
contemporary history; so that there were different books written by
different authors at different times, beginning with Moses 3,300 years
ago, and ending, as some suppose, with Ezra, or Nehemiah, about 2,300
years ago.
Now the question is, “Do the various allusions to places which lie
scattered up and down the history agree or disagree with what we know of
those places from observation on the spot?” Through the patient labours
of some eminently scientific men working for the Palestine Exploration
Fund, we know a vast deal more of the country than has ever been known
since the dispersion of the people. We have before us the result of a
most careful scientific survey, from which we may learn in perfect
confidence the evidence of the rocks. What we have to do therefore is to
lay side by side the evidence of the rocks and the evidence of the
Books—to compare the two carefully, and to ascertain whether or not the
“witnesses” agree. The ancient rule was, that “out of the mouth of two
witnesses shall every word be established.” Here then there are two
witnesses—the rocks and the Books—do they or do they not agree?
Let us begin with the Book of Joshua, a book recording the original
invasion of the country, and the distribution of the land among the
tribes. In the ten chapters, beginning with the 13th, we have a full
account of that distribution, and a clear definition of the boundaries of
eleven tribes, with a list of forty-eight cities assigned to the sons of
Levi. This list and these boundaries have been most carefully examined
by the officers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the remarkable
result is that they can trace almost every place mentioned in Joshua; and
what is more remarkable still, “there is scarcely a village which does
not retain for its desolate heap or its modern hovels the Arabic
equivalent for the name written down by Joshua 3,300 years ago.” In many
cases there is nothing more than a cluster of a few wretched Arab huts,
or a heap of shapeless ruins; but so complete has been the identification
that there is no doubt left respecting Joshua’s boundaries; and if the
Jews were to return to-morrow, and in returning were to observe the
distinction of the tribes, those officers could at once point out to them
their several homes, and show them exactly what portion of the country
was originally assigned to them by lot.
This general fact is quite sufficient to prove the general accuracy of
the geography of the Book. But the general fact does not stand alone,
and there are countless details which are almost more conclusive than the
close agreement which we find existing between the list by Joshua and
that by scientific men. Let us consider one of these details, and
examine one neighbourhood in the light of modern science. The
neighbourhood shall be that of Bethel and Hai. Respecting Bethel, no
one, I believe entertains a doubt. It was named by Jacob “Bethel,” or
the house of God. It was afterwards called “Bethaven,” or “the house of
vanity,” in consequence of the idolatry of Jeroboam; and the extensive
ruins now found there are called Beitin. Now Bethel does not stand
alone, for it is frequently connected with Hai; so that Abraham’s second
halting-place, as recorded in Gen. xii. 8, was on a mountain “having
Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east.” There were two ranges of hills
running from north to south, with a valley between them, and on a hill
standing in that valley Abraham pitched his tent, and built an altar unto
the Lord. Now, as I have just said, there is not the slightest doubt
about the identification of Bethel. But what are we to say of Hai? In
Joshua viii. we have an accurate description of its capture, and every
detail of the attack can be verified on the spot. But we cannot find the
name. There is a heap, or mound, on the slope of the hill, which no
doubt marks the site. But the name Hai is completely lost. The name
given to the mound is Tell. Now Tell is the word for heap, so that Tell
Ashtereh is the heap of Ashtaroth, and Tell Kedes the heap of Kadesh.
But to this heap there is no such name attached, and the only name is
Tell. “Tell” alone marks the spot. And now turn to Joshua viii. 28:
“And Joshua burnt Hai, and made it an heap” (_i.e._ a Tell) “for ever,
even a desolation unto this day.” The name given by the modern Bedouin
is exactly that of the ancient record, and the testimony of the stones is
in perfect agreement with the scriptural narrative.
But this is not all. I have already pointed out that the hill between
Bethel and Hai was Abraham’s second halting-place; and if we turn to Gen.
xiii. we shall find, in verses 3, 4, that after he had been down into
Egypt he returned to that same spot, and there once more he called on the
name of the Lord. It was there that he made Lot the generous offer of
the choice of the land, and that “Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all
the plain of Jordan.” But at first sight this seems impossible, for
between Bethel and Jordan there is a lofty range of hills running from
north to south, and completely obstructing the view; and so the merely
superficial observer might say that the Book was wrong. But before we
come to any such decision we must consult the stones. And what will they
say to us? Go up the heights above Bethel on the west, and they will
tell you that there is no view of the plain of Sodom there. Go up on the
eastern side to the Tell that once was Hai, and there is no view there.
But now go to the mountain having Bethel on the west and Hai on the east,
the very spot where, according to the 13th chapter of Genesis, Abraham
and Lot were standing; and there through a gap in the hills you see the
very sight that tempted Lot, and you look on the plains of Sodom, as Lot
looked on them not much less than 4,000 years ago.
And what makes the agreement still more wonderful is that the Book was
written by one who was not an inhabitant of the country, and who had
never stood on that mountain-top. It is obvious from the history that
Moses was never there, and accordingly it is obvious from the Book that
it was written on the eastern side of Jordan. In all the Books written
in Palestine the expression “Beyond Jordan” is employed to describe the
eastern side. But it is not so with the Book of Genesis. In chapter l.
10 there is the mention of the “threshing-floor of Atad,” where Joseph
and his company made a mourning for Jacob, and in verse 11 this place is
said to be “beyond Jordan.” But Atad was on the west side of Jordan, for
it was amongst the Canaanites, and is believed by learned men to have
been between the Jordan and Jericho. To Moses, therefore, approaching
Canaan from the east, it was “beyond Jordan.” To any pretender writing
after the occupation of the promised land it would have been “on this
side Jordan.” But to Moses, who died on the eastern side, and never set
his foot on the western side, it was “beyond.” He may have seen it from
Pisgah, but that was all. He never set his foot there, for he never
crossed the Jordan. So he never set his foot on the mount between Bethel
and Ai; but he wrote with the most minute geographical accuracy. And
thus we have the testimony of the stones that the Book of Genesis was not
only the Book of truth, but, may we not add, that Moses was inspired by
God Himself to write with such perfect truthfulness of places which he
had never seen?
This one instance must suffice as an illustration of _geographical_
accuracy, and we may hasten to consider the second point; viz.:—